(PC) Adkins v. Kernan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DUPREE LAMONT ADKINS, No. 2:19-CV-0458-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SCOTT KERNAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 19 23) and supplemental complaint (ECF No. 24). 20 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 21 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 23 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 24 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 25 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 26 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 27 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 28 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 1 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 2 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege 3 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 4 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 5 impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 6 and conclusory. 7 As discussed above, Rule 8 requires a complaint contain a short and plain 8 statement of the claim. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is generally incoherent and difficult 9 to decipher across its fifty-five pages of allegations. Additionally, it refers to nearly 170 pages of 10 attached documents which purportedly support the factual allegations against the defendants. 11 Plaintiff references the attached exhibits in their entirety, which tend to be lengthy themselves and 12 include their own exhibits, rendering plaintiff’s allegations indefinite. Furthermore, plaintiff’s 13 supplemental complaint is ambiguous as to whether it attempts to bring a separate § 1983 claim 14 or supplement a claim stated in the second amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges spoliation of 15 evidence on the basis that either he was prevented from attaining records he is entitled to possess 16 or that unattached documents show defendants are withholding records from plaintiff. See ECF 17 No. 24. Plaintiff also appears to allege the records are related to his legal mail claim in the 18 second amended complaint. See id. at 2. 19 This pleading method does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 8(a) that claims 20 must be stated simply, concisely, and directly to give defendants fair notice of plaintiff’s claims. 21 To the contrary, plaintiff’s complaint would require the court to comb through 222 pages of 22 documents in order to determine whether plaintiff has stated any claims upon which relief can be 23 granted. The court is unwilling to do this in part due to limited judicial resources but also because 24 it is for plaintiff – not the court – to formulate his claims in a way that satisfies the rules. The 25 complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. This is the second screening order directing 26 plaintiff to abide by Rule 8 requirements. See ECF No. 20. Once again, plaintiff is cautioned that 27 failure to file an amended complaint within the time specified herein may result in dismissal of 28 the entire action. See Local Rule 110. MASS SLD IVINS VUITTON PY VM VI 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's second amended complaint (ECF No. 23) and supplemental 3 | complaint (ECF No. 24) are dismissed with leave to amend; and 4 3. Plaintiff shall file a third amended complaint, setting forth all his 5 | allegations in a single pleading, within 30 days of the date of this order. 6 7 8 | Dated: July 21, 2020 Ssvcqo_ ? DENNIS M. COTA 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28